Inside PRISM: Why the Government Hates Encryption 457
Lauren Weinstein writes "Now, what's really going on with PRISM? The government admits that the program exists, but says it is being 'mischaracterized' in significant ways (always a risk with secret projects sucking up information about your citizens' personal lives). The Internet firms named in the leaked documents are denying that they have provided 'back doors' to the government for data access. Who is telling the truth? Likely both. Based on previous information and the new leaks, we can make some pretty logical guesses about the actual shape of all this. Here's my take."
Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government admits that the program exists, but says it is being 'mischaracterized' in significant ways ... The Internet firms named in the leaked documents are denying that they have provided 'back doors' to the government for data access. Who is telling the truth? Likely both.
Considering that the government is not saying anything in particular, it is easy to tell the truth here. When they defend the program as a "crucial tool in war on terrorism", that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree. Thus anything could be a crucial tool.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are willing to do things like define all military age males as militants [salon.com] to avoid admitting to civilian casualties from drone attacks you know they don't have a problem redefining pretty much any word in order to avoid being held accountable to the people.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me turn that on your head. If you had been living in your family home for all your life and a bunch of hoodlums came into your neighborhood and started shooting up the place, would you A. leave, or B. stay to spite them? Many people would choose A., but many would choose B.
Wrong. You don't make it so nobody wants to be anywhere near the militants. You teach the families of the innocent victims to hate America and Americans for assuming guilt by proximity. There's a difference. It is policies like these that fuel terrorism and anti-American sentiment around the globe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
I'm pretty sure they already hate America. Maybe for good reason, but that's a matter of perspective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Wow. So now the people fighting against the people we are ostensibly fighting are also legitimate targets. I thought the administration's redefinition of militant was entirely bogus, but you've taken it a level I never would have even conceived of.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Only if your intent was to mislead spectators of this debate. Since clearly these "militants" would actually be fighting _against_ the subset of "militants" that the U.S. forces were fighting against.
So for the purposes of this discussion, *NO*, the people in group B would not be called "militants" because at least superficially, they are specifically the kind of resident native that our government at least claims to be interested in protecting, not executing.
Or perhaps I'm too intoxicated to be trying to parse your sentence. But the general idea is that there are some "militants" in foreign countries whose goal is to slaughter as many civilian US citizens as possible. And there are some "militants" whose goal is stay in their home and raise their families, and wish to harm no US citizen blindly (now, they may have a personal beef with somebody, but they aren't out to kill citizens due to their specific citizenship). And from where I'm standing, it seems like your comment was meant to somehow confuse the two groups. Probably your just a semantic troll. But we are talking about killing people, via remote control, who bore the unfortune of having parents who fucked in a part of the world that decades later happened to become very dangerous for people that stubbornly just want to live in the land they were born in. And the more of those we kill, and literally propogandistically write off as "militants", the more dozens of people will fantasize about suicide missions killing the appeasing populace of the country that accidentally droned their family member to bits, for being the wrong gender, and age, and skin color, in the wrong geographic region that happened to be their homeland, at the wrong time. Or so it seems to me.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
The word militant has traditionally meant that the person is part of an organized resistance, not merely stuck in the combat area when the shit hit the fan. We call those people victims or refugees depending on whether they stay or leave.
I'm pretty sure they already hate America. Maybe for good reason, but that's a matter of perspective.
Most of the world hates America, and they have damn good reasons for doing so that aren't about perspective. America has given up caring about collateral damage. Our international ambassador of peace is the Predator drone. "Bringing democracy" has become synonymous with "They're sending in tanks and missiles and shit again." We've unilaterally withdrawn from several key Geneva conventions, we're engaging in mass acts of torture of areas we occupy...
I don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut what religion you are... if some assholes are rolling tanks down your street, dropping bombs on your neighbors, and shooting friends and family... they are not liberating you, it's not democracy, and you got every reason and right to kick the mother fuckers right in the teeth. And I say that as an American of no particular religion. My home is my castle. The founding fathers started on about that whole business, and I think they might have been onto something there.
We're going about things all wrong. People don't just hate America, America hates itself. It's economically depressed, militarily suicidal... and frankly, if America was my aunt, I'd be asking the state to have them committed post-haste, because they're fucking up every good thing that life ever gave them while screaming "I'm sane! No really! I'm the sanest one here!"
We're going about this whole warfare thing all wrong. Congress, please stop sending us to po-dunk desert countries and pissing off the locals... it's not helping us, and it's not helping them. The only people it's helping are the defense industry, which has massive (and now unlimited!) funds going towards our elected officials, which in turn are inking orders for new tanks That the entire joint chiefs of staff said we don't need, we have no possible need for, in fact, if you give them to us we're just going to park them out in the Nevada desert with the 50,000 other tanks that are sitting out there rusting... that we also don't need, from the last time we said we don't need any more fucking tanks... I mean, guys... when your own military is saying "No thanks, we're full" and we're force feeding them more equipment...
Sit back and take the fucking hint, man. We are seriously messed in the head as a country.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the amendment protocols released in 1977 cover this case (you can't execute them according to it, they are either a prisoner of war if military or civilian if not, there is no "vague" ground, the US refuses to become a signing party to it though.
Other things in that protocol amendment include.
Article 77 forbids conscription of children under age 15 into the armed forces. It does allow, however, for persons under the age of 15 to participate voluntarily.
Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate atta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you could manuever a sniper into a position to shoot him. Or fastrope some riflemen from a helicopter to shoot and/or beat him senseless.
The problem with solutions like that, though, is they don't do any good helping to justify why you need billion-dollar weapon systems to fight a bunch of dirt farmers with Kalashnikovs and RPGs but no planes, helicopters, armor, or anti-aircraft capability to speak of.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. You don't make it so nobody wants to be anywhere near the militants. You teach the families of the innocent victims to hate America and Americans for assuming guilt by proximity. There's a difference. It is policies like these that fuel terrorism and anti-American sentiment around the globe.
You know, I'm starting to think that that is the point... I mean it makes sense if you think about it. Those in power need people to hate and attack us endlessly if they are going to get that endless war they have always wanted.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's very brutal, but I still think it's too early to tell whether the drone strikes are a policy that works
When we have technology capable of putting a missile through an attic window, or down a ventilation shaft, the government does have an obligation to limit civilian casualties. This isn't like Dresden, or London during WWII, when bombs were more or less flung out the back door and they hit where they hit... sometimes miles off target. Thus the reason for carpet bombing in the first place -- there was no accuracy: It was Angry Birds with kilotons of ordinance.
But ignoring the technological side of things, thousands (yes, thousands) of years of military history has shown that the key to winning any war is not in having superior technology or weapons, but in winning the hearts and minds of the people. Sun Tzu wrote about this back when the state of the art was long spears and loud screams, and not a damn thing has changed. But you know, fuck Tzu, maybe you need something a little more modern: How about the British/American war of independence? The greatest navy on the planet, best trained military at the time, got its ass handed to it by some upstart guy named Washington whose troops crossed the Potamac river on Christmas while starving to the point they had been eating their own boots only a few days prior. How'd that happen? "SOONER", you say? Okay, the Vietnam war. Now we're the greatest military force on the planet. We get our asses handed to us by a bunch of tunnel-dwelling communists who largely rely on traps made out of sharpened bamboo and guns that are 40 years old. SOONER! Okay, the war in Iraq. Which one? All of them.
So please, don't even try taking the position that making our ambassadors to the world a predator drone is going to end anything but very, very badly for us. Sun Tzu, were he alive right now, would be posting Picard facepalm pics as a reaction to just about every strategic initiative our government has undertaken in the past twenty years. To him, we're push-overs. We are not a threat... all the nukes in the world can't change the simple fact that where we go, we're resented. And it'll be the death of us, perhaps quite literally.
The fight for democracy cannot be won by any technology we now possess. Not drones, not nukes, none of it. There is but one weapon to assure us of victory: People.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think it's quite as reliably accurate as all that.
I admit, it's sometimes hard to tell the military contractor porn from Mission: Impossible.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's quite as reliably accurate as all that.
2006 [youtube.com] just called. It says it was reliably accurate then. We've been able to shoot missiles down with other missiles for quite some time now. Do you really think when we can do that at several times the speed of sound we can't reliably do it at less than it?
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Insightful)
How does Sun Tzu suggest winning the hearts and minds of people whose devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed?
I hope DARPA is working on an anti-religious extremism technology. And I hope it gets used domestically too.
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How does Sun Tzu suggest winning the hearts and minds of people whose devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed?
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." -- Sun Tzu
I suppose it applies equally to religions... if you're constantly at war, you weaken yourself to the point you make yourself easy to conquer. And when I say the people, I mean the majority, not the "devout" minority calling the shots. And the majority is going to get tired of being constantly poor, hungry, and underappreciated by the "devout"... war isn't cheap. There is no religion that has lasted long where the majority
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would hope so. That's why I didn't specify a religion.
Religion will always keep people poor and ignorant. If you look at the US states that have the lowest incomes, highest poverty and lowest literacy, they are, 10 for 10, the most religious.
If you look at the states that have the highest education, the lowest divorce rates and lowest poverty, they are 4 of 5 the least religious.
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Insightful)
How does Sun Tzu suggest winning the hearts and minds of people whose devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed?
That sounds like the war propaganda handbook list of accusations against the enemy, No. 4. Their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed. That's what the Protestants said about the Catholics, the French about the Germans, the Germans about the French, what we said about the Japanese, the Russians, and all our enemies. Now we're up to the Arabs.
And pray tell me how you know that their devout faith tells them that anyone who doesn't believe the same way should be killed? Did you hear that when you visited your local mosque? Did you read it in the Koran? Or did you get it from the propaganda tanks like MEMRI and CAMERA?
Re:Definitions. (Score:4, Insightful)
that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree.
For it is the doom of men that they forget. -- Merlin, Excalibur [imdb.com]
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. [gpo.gov]
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
By their deeds you shall know them.
1996 Bin Laden's Fatwa [pbs.org] - The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi
1998 Bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya [nytimes.com]
2000 Photo: USS Cole [washingtonpost.com] - Video: 2000: USS Cole Attack [cbsnews.com] in Yemen
2001 9-11 [telegraph.co.uk]
2002 Bali terror attack [bbc.co.uk]
2004 Madrid train attacks [bbc.co.uk]
2005 London 7/7 Terrorist Attacks [www.bl.uk]
2009 Now classified as "workplace violence" - Nidal Hasan Admitted Jihadist Motive, Ft. Hood Victims’ Attorneys Say [go.com]
2013 Boston Marathon Bombing [cbsnews.com]
Note that this is only a snapshot of attacks, and doesn't include the many attacks that occurred in the Middle East (except the Cole). It also doesn't include the many plots disrupted by the security services, or cancelled by the terrorists planning them. It doesn't include the many arrests for terrorism related activity, but snapshot of that over a short period of time is below:
FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012 [fbi.gov]
Re:Definitions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Holy wall of text, batman. I feel we should build a Plinth upon which to erect this comment, for never before, and perhaps never again, will a person as completely encompass why the acronym "tl;dr" was invented.
Let's wind back the clock a few months to the 3rd week in February. It's late at night and Jon Stewart pops in; "So 'imminent threat'... in other words, imminent... or not imminent. Broadly speaking, imminent in the geological sense. So, wait, we can kill an American who is in al Qaeda or al Qaeda-a
it just occurred to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for bringing up China.
On the eve of Obama's meeting with President Jinping, any conversations about Chinese espionage is going to be quite embarrassing.
Re:it just occurred to me (Score:5, Funny)
On the eve of Obama's meeting with President Jinping, any conversations about Chinese espionage is going to be quite embarrassing.
That's it! The Chinese found out about this through their hacking, and leaked it to the press to avoid complaints about their hacking. Is there anything like a Pulitzer Prize for conspiracy theories?
Re: (Score:3)
back door? (Score:4, Interesting)
Rogue employees (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always the chance that NSA has Google employees on its payroll that are tasked with secretly handing off data. They could even be there under a verbal handshake agreement with Google management, giving Google plausible deniability in case they are ever discovered: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that data gathering is going on in here!"
Then everyone is happy - the NSA gets their data, and Google can legitimately say that "they" are not handing over data to the NSA.
And since secret FISA orders can apparently compel anyone to do just about anything and keep it a secret, there's nothing illegal about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly but I have to think at least some of these billionaires would say hold on, and buy a half hour block of TV that evening to have a chat with America.
Re:Rogue employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly but I have to think at least some of these billionaires would say hold on, and buy a half hour block of TV that evening to have a chat with America.
"Sergey and Larry, we know the Justice department has been hard on your company, and we've heard that they are going to open a lot more probes into your business practices, you'll be deposed so many times that you may as well move to Washington DC. I think we could make things better for you if you'll just agree to let us put a few of our employees in your datacenters....as a token showing of good faith, we're giving you use of NASA's runway at Moffett Field for your little 767 jet"
Re: (Score:2)
What are you even referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
I have to think at least some of these billionaires would say hold on, and buy a half hour block of TV that evening to have a chat with America.
And put themselves out of business? Not likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly but I have to think at least some of these billionaires would say hold on, and buy a half hour block of TV that evening to have a chat with America.
Why? Given the cost of 30 minutes of prime time, it'd probably be cheaper to just buy a few senators, and then have them tell the spooks to back off...
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_for_NSA_spying [wikipedia.org]
It's he-said-she-said, but pretty much the events in order are:
1) guy tells stock holders he landed awesome government contract and states contract as income up front.
2) guy tells government not to listen to everyone's phone calls.
3) government cancels awesome contract, Qwest suddenly "loses" all that money they "had" in step 1.
4) government arrests guy for lying to stockholders in step 1.
The government's not entirely at fault here, if he hadn't state
Re: (Score:3)
I think this goes beyond a few employees walking out with the occasional thumb drive. If they have a link inside Google* it means a sh*tload of additional traffic to their backbone provider. Or a dedicated fiber link. Someone would notice.
*Its more likely this is being monitored in real time at the backbone providers. The same people that were given unconditional amnesty for handing customer data out. Cue the movie scene where the crooked cop has all the local hoods on a short leash when he needs some dirt
Re: (Score:2)
I think this goes beyond a few employees walking out with the occasional thumb drive. If they have a link inside Google* it means a sh*tload of additional traffic to their backbone provider. Or a dedicated fiber link. Someone would notice.
Depends what data they are monitoring, if they are just capturing search queries and IP addresses, it's not that much data. Google gets around 4B queries/day [statisticbrain.com]. If each query log entry consumes 256 bytes (should be less with compression?) that's 1TB of data per day, which *would* fit on a thumb drive [wired.co.uk]. Or consume around 100mbit/second of bandwidth, which would be lost in the noise of Google's outbound bandwidth (or served by a single AT&T fiber drop that terminates at the NSA)
*Its more likely this is being monitored in real time at the backbone providers. The same people that were given unconditional amnesty for handing customer data out. Cue the movie scene where the crooked cop has all the local hoods on a short leash when he needs some dirty work done.
Depends on whether or not they
Re:Rogue employees (Score:5, Insightful)
You want tin foil? How's this:
Go read James Bamford's "Body of Secrets". Near the end, he mentions the things that the NSA needs to get right in order to stay ahead in the intelligence business:
Distributed data so that the loss of one data center doesn't impact data
Ability to import and index a massive amount of information continuously (while keeping it available)
Accurate speech to text
Accurate language translation
Ability to search massive amounts of data very quickly, ranking results
Search through different media formats (video, audio, text, etc.)
Now go look at what Google is good at and known for.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think so much funding for open source NoSQL comes from three letter agencies?
http://www.dataversity.net/10gen-closes-funding-round-with-us-intelligence-investors/ [dataversity.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that nobody would notice this stream of ridiculously sensitive data flowing out of the systems? Especially after the paranoia inspired by the Aurora attacks from the Chinese? I guarantee you this stuff would be found out near immediately. Also keep in mind that the people who work at these companies are geeky engineer types, which means they very likely feel just as strongly about all this as anyone.
What would you say when your boss tells you "Hey, Bill and Jeff are working on an analytics project that will give us a huge edge in the market. They're keeping their equipment in those two racks in the datacenter marked "Secret analytics product - keep out". They'll be hitting your API's to pull out some search data from our front-ends for deeper analysis of customer search patterns, and will be reporting directly to me.
Especially if there are 5 or 6 "secret" projects going on at the same time to test out
Re: (Score:3)
being dropped off at the office by black SUV's
Limo service for your commute? Cool perk.
Re: (Score:2)
keep in mind that the people who work at these companies are geeky engineer types, which means they very likely feel just as strongly about all this as anyone
What type do you think work at the NSA? The few NSA vets I've known fit the geeky engineer mold pretty well.
don't you think that everyone's on the lookout for any symptoms of monitoring?
They may be well aware that monitoring capabilities exist, in fact that's not even surprising. Phone companies have had monitoring/bugging capabilities for years. It's perfectly legitimate if it's only used pursuant to a proper warrant. But knowing that these capabilities exist, and knowing exactly how they're being used are two different things. Do the few techies that handle it even see the warrants
look at the wording carefully (Score:5, Insightful)
To anyone complaining about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, I apologize for being so harsh. What I meant to say was, you have the right to remain silent. Please make the most of it. Thank you very much
Re: (Score:3)
you have the right to remain silent
Not anymore.
1.5%?! What about everyone outside the US? (Score:3)
There are a lot more than 1.5% of us who didn't vote for the US government, starting with almost everyone outside the US, who the US Powers That Be don't much seem to care about alienating this week even if we're all "allies". This whole mess is exposing the fundamental problems of international legal frameworks when it comes to commercial and intelligence practice.
For example, it's now going to be very awkward for US businesses that deal with lots of personal information about people from Europe -- where d
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You have it backwards, your 1.5% have no representatives to even complain to
So? Let's say you voted for Obama (I did in 2008). What are you going to do, threaten to vote Republican if he doesn't stop wiping his ass with the Constitution? Barack to George: pass the toilet paper.
Re:Guility motherfucker! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guility motherfucker! (Score:4, Informative)
To keep the wrong, abortion limiting, homosexual right denying, health care privatizing, global warming denying, Social Security gutting lizard out.
Re: (Score:3)
Throwing your vote away is failing to register your displeasure by voting as a sheep.
It is NOT a wasted vote to refuse to vote for a fuckhead but it is obviously a waste to cast a vote for a fuckhead. Winning isn't everything -- if nobody protests then the fuckhead thinks he's got a mandate. And if the fuckhead should lose to the other fuckhead not because that one got so many votes, but because the a lot of people voted for their cat (as I did for any seat in which there was no third party, and I mean an
Re: (Score:3)
Because the Democrats voted 3:1 against it.
Companies did not deny giving data to gov't (Score:3, Informative)
The companies denied knowing a code name (PRISM) and using a specific method for giving data to the gov't (backdoors). They didn't deny participating in a program to give data to the government. ABC News has a good analysis of their statements:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nsa-prism-dissecting-technology-companies-adamant-denial-involvement/story?id=19350095 [go.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The companies denied knowing a code name (PRISM) and using a specific method for giving data to the gov't (backdoors). They didn't deny participating in a program to give data to the government. ABC News has a good analysis of their statements:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nsa-prism-dissecting-technology-companies-adamant-denial-involvement/story?id=19350095 [go.com]
Also all the companies say they only do it in accordance with the law. That may well be true, but so what? That doesn't mean the law isn't corrupt, or that they didn't get an overly broad FISA court order that comes with a gag. I really can't blame these companies as they have little choice. The problem is with the government.
Really going on? Let me spell it out for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case - Just straight up fuck the government. No sane reading of the rights guaranteed us by the constitution allows for such a tortured interpretation. And I don't care how you use it Barry O - I care that you collect it in the first place. The constitution doesn't say "we can stop by and take a look around your place as long as we don't press charges", it says "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". Doesn't take a legal scholar to parse that, you worthless floaters atop the DC sewers!
/ For those who would inevitably bring up the 3rd amendment - We lost that one over a century ago - Thanks, Mr. Lincoln! They just haven't had a reason to casually disregard it in the past century, but make no mistake, they would (again) in a heartbeat.
Re:Really going on? Let me spell it out for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
So...what you're saying, is that this government is effectively an anti-US government?
Why so surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always assumed anything I've posted, including E-mail or said is public knowledge.
Way back when... The usenet group knew or took for granted that every message
went through NSA, at the time is was no big deal just be a backbone and filter for words
or phrases. The practice was referred to as the eight words, while I forget them, one or more of the
eight words were sure to get your post sidelined and read.
As for back doors these have been in place for a long time, Microsoft's Firewall will
allow trusted parties to slip right through. There was a time these were talked about
in the open.
ToS and privacy policies tell you what information is being collected and what it's used
for, Angry birds has one line that says any amount of your data will "go overseas".
The game appropriately named "Jewel link!" one of many free games put out by Ezjoy Network
has no ToS or privacy policy and requires every permission Android has. Ezjoy Network can make
a copy of your entire system if they want as they've promised nothing, which you accepted when installed.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ezjoynetwork.jewelslink&feature=search_result [google.com]
paste m.ezjoygame.com into google and watch what happens. "You get a Google Instant is unavailable. Press Enter to search"
message but you can learn more here: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/186645?form=bb&hl=en [google.com]
Google isn't all the Innocent, recently Google Play restricted any program that interferes with
the data capture of another program, blocking programs like Adaway, or any number of programs
that blocked sites (a HOSTS file) or change permissions.
Why so surprised?
If this is what the government is doing... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is what the government is doing to protect me, I don't want to be protected anymore. I'll take my own chances.
I would rather be dead to a terrorist bomb than live in 1984.
Horseshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I've always thought Lauren Weinstein was an idiot, and now it's been confirmed. Google doesn't have to give the NSA access, the NSA will just take it. You're a moron if you think there's anything other than the constitution stopping the feds from doing whatever the hell they want. They have more money than any other organization on earth by several orders of magnitude. If the government does not respect the constitution in one way, why would they respect it in any other? If they are already packet capturing all of our traffic, is steeling API access to Googles databases any worse? As far as technical ability goes, all they would have had to do is bribe a couple of high level, psychologically profiled DBAs with talk of patriotism or telling their wives about their boyfriends and they're in.
If the federal government thinks it can fire a hellfire missile from a drone and kill a US citizen without evidence, trial or judicial oversight, then reading our email is a joke to them. It's an easy thing to do, they think they are righteous in their attempts and they have endless resources... OF COURSE THEY'RE DOING IT. The idea that Larry Page would have any fucking clue is a joke. "yes, lets makes sure some celebrities know about our evil plan!"
China might be the safest place right now... (Score:4, Informative)
... from US government intrusive spying. Oh, the irony.
Consider this- The Great Wall of China filters out most of the debris. Most Chinese citizens use local equivalents such as Sina, Weibo, QQ etc which PRISM doesn't touch. The Chinese government has demanded (and received) and vetted source codes of software such as Microsoft's Windows which are used internally. Chinese telecoms are immune to FISA.
Then again, if you go down that route all your data belongs to China.
On a related note, this whole PRISM thingy does give a lot more credence to China's complaints about being victims of US covert intelligence.
Bleh (Score:3)
The government hates encryption because it despises the idea that it isn't in control of everything. 'Tis the singular life goal of every government -> to expand and destroy all competition, act with all subterfuge until it completely controls everything within its visible domain. Duh.
It's a simple life-form, with a predetermed mindset, that follows a path laid out for it much like every one of its predecessors. It has all the complexity of an amoeba (a single-celled organism), engulfing everything in its path, and so on.
The current set of scandals? Predictable, sadly so. What this government is planning for later? Already written down in some text book somewhere. But no, we're going to continue as we always have, because hubris demands it.
Frankly I tire of this play, but it's the only thing that anyone wants to watch.
DDR (Score:3)
Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Most obvious: (Score:5, Funny)
A front door is not, after all, a back door.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what sh... fuck it.
Re:Most obvious: (Score:5, Funny)
And then she said "Oh... OH!... So that's why people do this!
The front door (Score:4, Interesting)
So far Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, FB et al had been identified by the Prism disclosure
They are indentified because they are in the big data business
However, I'll bet that there's yet another US company which may be deeply involved - CISCO
I get this thought only on hindsight - the way the US government reacted so negatively on Huawei gears really makes me wonder if there's another hidden story somewhere
Maybe, and I stress, just _maybe_ Huawei's hardware does not come with the backdoor which NSA/FBI (or any other alphabetic agency) can tap on to spy on us, and that fact alone infuriate them so much
Or ... to put it another way ... the so-called "safe hardware", the ones made by CISCO, may come with backdoors which NSA can drive a semi through
The more I think of this scenario, the more it makes sense --- Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, FB can deny their participation on the Prism scheme because, technically, they are *NOT*
It's the CISCO gears that they use in the datacenter which accomplish the task
Other people's back door maybe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe, and I stress, just _maybe_ Huawei's hardware does come with a backdoor which Chinese intelligence services can tap on to spy on us?
Now in my private life, a backdoor for Chinese intelligence services might bother me less than a backdoor for the NSA. Because if I happen to do something that my (German) government does not like, there is the risk that the NSA shares data with them. But I don't think that the Chinese and German government are that good buddies ;-)
For a company that has valuable corporate data, industry espionage is a risk either way, but probably worse with a Chinese backdoor.
Re:Other people's back door maybe? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the government tells me about the targets of their surveillance does not matter. They are lying anyway (see also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order [guardian.co.uk]).
What matters is that they can get at my data easily enough for routine surveillance even when I'm not in their jurisdiction, and that such data might be used against me. Considering that, I'm actually less worried about spying by a government that is not allied with my own. Because the non-allies are unlikely to share the data with my government.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, FB if you have the Verizon Backbone that is carrying most of their traffic. It might not even be Verizon, but you get my point.
How do we get around this issue? There is a huge MitM operating here and that is scary.
Re:Microsoft Hired People To Make Positive Comment (Score:4, Insightful)
This is important.
To 14-year-olds everywhere!
Very true. I think it should be important to anyone who's concerned about the future of computing and the future generally, but a 14 year old is just starting their life. They'll have a lot longer to look forward to than the old, jaded people who're running Microsoft and Prism.
If I was 14 again, I'd sure as hell be hunting around frantically looking for a way out of this cage. And I'd sure as hell not be using any Microsoft products.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
"The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat"
Yet more evidence that the terrorists have won. We have here yet another citizen who believes that terrorism is a major problem. Each and every day, more Americans die in automobile accidents, than the terrorists have managed to kill since 9/11/01. Yet, "we're dog meat" because of terrorists.
Far to few Americans have any balls these days. Is it something in the diet? To many drugs? To much brain washing? What is it that causes Americans to whine like whipped dogs? "we're dog meat".
On the day of the Boston Marathon bombings, I saw a lot of people who have a bit of fortitude running TOWARD the explosions, to care for their fellow citizens. People with big brass balls, who understood that something bad had happened, and decided that they should disregard the potential for further explosions. Most of the severely injured have survived because all those people ran toward the disaster, and not away from it. The crowd at the marathon bombing made me proud.
This "we're dog meat" shit is embarrassing as all hell. I can see why he posted as AC.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
"The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat"
Yet more evidence that the terrorists have won. ... This "we're dog meat" shit is embarrassing as all hell.
It helps if you put "dog meat" in its original context.
The FBI, NSA, CIA are just too stupid, moronic, retarded to actually work within the Constitution of the United States of America and therefore have to violate it in order to do - attempt - their job. If they were truly smart, they could work within the confines of the Constitution. But they can't - they are stupid. The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat because our security services are stupid. Security services have to eliminate basic freedoms to achieve their goals; which means they are morons.
In which case it pretty obvious that he's complaining about the laziness and incompetence of our "security" services, not hiding under a table from the terrorists.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
In context, or out, AC has complained about the situation surrounding terrorism, characterized our own people as incompetent, and characterized the terrorists as "smart". He has concluded that "we are dog meat".
I insist that the terrorists aren't all that smart, and that despite our incompetent leaders, we, individual Americans, can make all the difference in the world.
Further, I propose that the FBI, NSA, etc aren't trying to get around the Constitution because they are stupid. In reality, they are typical organizations, which seek to expand their authority, their budgets, their manpower and their influence. Some pretty smart people in each of these organizations spend a lot of time figuring out ways to accomplish these goals. Is it stupid to try to acquire more power? I would say, "No, it is not."
It's dishonest, it's overbearing, it's dirty - but it's not stupid.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Not stupid?
Ultimately, the backlash isn't going to be pretty. These are people sworn to uphold the US Constitution, but FISA has given them their grip, and the opaque nature of FISA courts means that they're the black hand of government.
The fear-based culture after 9/11 gave rise to lots of brutish and boorish legislation. Freedom Fries. We were fighting a small, even handful of disorganized terrorists. Now, the backlash has caused armies of dedicated fighters, not they're that smart.
So what happens? You dragnet most of the communications infrastructure of the USA, and call that a win. A win? It's enormously costly both in terms of money spent, but also the feeling that we don't trust our own government, and we've reduced the currency of fighting for ideals, rather than for oil, the crooks on K Street.
Stupid? Yes. It's debased the level of trust, and created ostensible enemies of all us, watching all of us. Where is there an ounce of warmth, trust, and liberty in sifting through 10^7 conversations, just to find a nugget or two?
Re:Morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting "feel good" argument, but lacking in substance. We have a Government that paid manufacturing companies money to move jobs overseas. We have a Government that created NAFTA without the concern for the very obvious problems this would cause for Americans. We have a current Government trying to expand NAFTA to numerous Pacific countries, again without care for Americans. We have a Government spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we simply do not have buying surveillance, guns, ammunition, and armored vehicles for use within the US Borders (I.E. DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA expansion, not Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force). You have a Government spending millions of dollars advertising, telling people how bad Guns are and trying with all their might to convince people that they don't need to protect themselves.
Quite frankly, if you are not scared at this point you need to wake up.
Notice I didn't even touch on things we know that some may consider "Conspiracy Theory".
Re: (Score:3)
You live in fear. You think you need this for your survival. You build these straw men arguments, and then let them enthrall you. Maybe someone else told you these, late night in a bar some place.
They're half-truths that are used to conflate fear-based arguments. Takes courage to see past the fact that government is for sale. NAFTA is a red herring. Unions screwed themselves. Great idea, horrible execution. Costs went thru the roof, and competitiveness did not. Labor was exported for the same reason that wa
FISA == law unto themselves (Score:4, Interesting)
the opaque nature of FISA courts means that they're the black hand of government.
The FISA court members have lifetime appointments, and cannot be touched by the executive branch, or congress. They are effectively a law unto themselves, since their dirty laundry never gets aired by the supreme court. Oh course they're going to take the conservative approach and allow wide-spread surveillance. They can't get in trouble for doing so, but if they don't, then maybe something bad really will happen.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Interesting)
This looks like as good of place as any to post this link to a really interesting post on Reddit. I normally don't link stuff, this one was kind of bone chilling and relevant.
For your reading pleasure: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/caeb3pl?context=3 [reddit.com]
Things that make me go "Hmmm...."
P.S. it's the highlighted post.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Interesting)
That was an excellent post. For anyone who can't or doesn't want to visit Reddit, I am reproducing 161719's post dated 2013-06-07 below:
I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:
1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.
Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.
With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.
2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, fuck it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.
3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the record
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Once they return to their positions of wealth and privilege in civilian life, and their hand-picked successors assume their places in the halls of power, you mean?
Oh, yeah, I'm sure that they're *very* worried about what happens then.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Jeff Bauman, who looked at the guy who left the bomb, got his legs blown off, and remembered it all, and described him to the police after regaining consciousness. Or Carlos Arredondo, who held a big artery shut running beside him in the wheelchair (that, or a tourniquet, but it looked like an artery -- it's cropped out of most of the photos you see now). Flawless. All those legs blown off could easily have been deaths, except that people got to them in time and took care of them.
Re:Morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet more evidence that the terrorists have won.
I'm tired of hearing people say, "the terrorists have won" when the government infringes on our freedom, because it's wildly inaccurate. Terrorists win when their tactics cause outcomes that meet their objectives. Terrorists literally could not care less whether Americans are oppressed by their own government. Their objectives are things like, getting the USA out of the middle east, destroying Israel, etc. What we do in our own country really isn't on their radar, except for American terrorists, who are very few and very low profile and really nobody is worried about them much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm tired of hearing people say, "the terrorists have won" when the government infringes on our freedom, because it's wildly inaccurate. Terrorists win when their tactics cause outcomes that meet their objectives. Terrorists literally could not care less whether Americans are oppressed by their own government.
With these terrorists that may be true, maybe. But, as an example, the RAF in Germany in the 1970s considered the increase in surveilance and oppression that resulted from their actions to be a win. As it revealed to the general public the true nature and wishes of their government (as they believed them to be).
Re: (Score:3)
It's difficult to compare accidental deaths to deaths with a clear and intentional human cause. The former is understandable if regrettable whereas the latter tends to arouse in people feelings of anger and a desire for revenge. So my own take on the issue is that people are willing to spend much more on vengeance and getting even than they are on preventing accidents or helping their fellow man, but that's just my opinion.
Re:Morons (Score:5, Interesting)
The terrorists are NOT especially smart. Sometimes they get lucky. Witness these two bozos in Boston, or the underwear bomber who about set his nads on fire, or the shoe bomber who failed to execute, or the butt bomber in the middle east who (ahem) blew his own ass up. The jerks who tried to bomb a terminal in Glasgow caught themselves on fire, and one of the people who caught them in the act kicked one of them so hard he tore a tendon in his own foot. Several of the otherwise successful bombers (Spain, London) got caught because they screwed up security with cell phones in traceable ways.
I also know a few people who may or may not have at one time worked for the NSA, and they're all smart, and one of them was kinda intense. Don't assume that you're smarter than them; the risks, if you're wrong, are high.
Re: (Score:3)
The terrorists are smart and we're dog meat because our security services are stupid.
Which terrorists are smart? The one who caught is underpants on fire? Or maybe the one who's car turned into essentially a smoke bomb in Times Square?
The reality is, most terrorists aren't very smart. Thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Utter BS, trust no-one, including you.
You don't trust Lauren Weinstein [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't trust Lauren Weinstein [wikipedia.org]?
An obvious plant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bu- bu- but Obama said that they're not listening into our phone calls and not to worry and everyone else says if I'm not doing anything wrong then I don't have anything to hide and should just shut the fuck up because I'm being paranoid...!
Re:More likely (Score:4, Informative)
Narus STA 6600 deep packet inspection gear
It's called PRISM because that's what you use to split optical fibres.
Passive man-in-the-middle attacks. Doesn't matter if they can't get access to contents due to encryption if they're analysing traffic patterns with ThinThread - which is exactly what they're doing.
There are also specific trojans that have been deployed inside major companies without their knowledge (well, without their knowledge until now).
Re: (Score:3)
Narus STA 6600 deep packet inspection gear
It's called PRISM because that's what you use to split optical fibres.
Passive man-in-the-middle attacks. Doesn't matter if they can't get access to contents due to encryption if they're analysing traffic patterns with ThinThread - which is exactly what they're doing.
There are also specific trojans that have been deployed inside major companies without their knowledge (well, without their knowledge until now).
ThinThread ==> Trailblazer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if the government has the ability to do deep packet inspection at the ISP or backbone level couldn't they see the negotiation of encryption keys between client and server and decrypt the data?
Doesn't work w/ public key encryption.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom is Free (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, if only there was a way for the government to clear this all up in a quick and efficient manner where public would trust their answers, none of this would have happened. Might be the chinese, might be not. The root of the problem is that you will be hard pressed to find a person that will trust anything that comes out of a mouth of government official (bush, obama, clinton, whatever).